This article about a speech by Jimmy Carter on June 19 contains one paragraph which is definitely NOT by Carter, and which is an outrageous editorial effort to contradict the point Carter is making. I’ve marked that paragraph and commented there.
Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
-----------------------------------
‘DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and
the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by
reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while
denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
‘Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference
in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006
election victory was "criminal." Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' corrupt Fatah movement.
‘Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid
to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the
Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."
‘****In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to
shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example
that would bring along Gaza.****’ (MY COMMENT: What the hell is this supposed to mean? The West Bank “a democratic example”? Hamas candidates, not the Fatah rebels who now control the West Bank, were elected to run the government. The Hamas government is the result of democracy and puts democracy into practice. Due to US and Israeli interference Hamas retains its rightful power only in Gaza. The West Bank is presently the world’s most conspicuous example of anti-democracy in action.)
‘Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the
U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome
by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military
power.
‘"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
‘"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and
did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he
said.
‘Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in
Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" -
but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills
and discipline."’
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Dishonest Terms
I’m quoting the following not just because the President of Iran routinely speaks more truth in one sentence that G.W. Bush does in a year, but primarily to point out the Associated Press article's choice of words used create bias in favor of Israel. Please see my comments at the end.
USAToday May 25, 2007
‘TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday warned Israel it would be uprooted if the Jewish state attacked Lebanon in the coming summer.
‘"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong."
‘‘"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will cut the root of the Zionist regime from its stem," added Ahmadinejad, speaking live on state television.
‘Referring to the history of Israel, Ahmadinejad said that "60 years of invasion and assassination is enough. If you do not cease invasion and massacre, soon the hand of power of the nations of the region will rub you criminals with earth."’
‘Ahmadinejad's comments came as Israeli troops in the West Bank arrested more than 30 senior Hamas members early Thursday, including a Cabinet minister, legislators and mayors.’
First, why “hard-line”? That term not only gives the impression of one who is unwholesomely inflexible and intractable, but also implies one who clings to an erroneous belief. President Ahmadinejad is “hard-line” because he doesn’t hop when Israel or Bush say “frog”, while some other Middle Eastern leaders are “moderate” because they submit to Zionist/U.S. orders and bribes and keep their servile heads in the sand.
Next, the word “arrest” is misused in order to create the false impression that the Zionist Jews have some legal right to snatch and lock up people whose land they choose to occupy (all expenses paid by the U.S.A.). “Arrest” means “to take or keep in custody by authority of law.” Repeat: “by authority of law”. Thus the word “arrest” is often wrongly used by American writers to lend a phony air of legitimacy to Israel’s kidnappings. Here the dishonesty is magnified because the cabinet ministers, legislators, and mayors whom Israel has snatched and unlawfully imprisoned were legitimately elected to govern the land where they were kidnapped!
It was the United States which most loudly supported democracy and free elections in Palestine – and then, with Israel, promptly tried to reverse the results of the election when it didn’t like the results.
USAToday May 25, 2007
‘TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday warned Israel it would be uprooted if the Jewish state attacked Lebanon in the coming summer.
‘"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong."
‘‘"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will cut the root of the Zionist regime from its stem," added Ahmadinejad, speaking live on state television.
‘Referring to the history of Israel, Ahmadinejad said that "60 years of invasion and assassination is enough. If you do not cease invasion and massacre, soon the hand of power of the nations of the region will rub you criminals with earth."’
‘Ahmadinejad's comments came as Israeli troops in the West Bank arrested more than 30 senior Hamas members early Thursday, including a Cabinet minister, legislators and mayors.’
First, why “hard-line”? That term not only gives the impression of one who is unwholesomely inflexible and intractable, but also implies one who clings to an erroneous belief. President Ahmadinejad is “hard-line” because he doesn’t hop when Israel or Bush say “frog”, while some other Middle Eastern leaders are “moderate” because they submit to Zionist/U.S. orders and bribes and keep their servile heads in the sand.
Next, the word “arrest” is misused in order to create the false impression that the Zionist Jews have some legal right to snatch and lock up people whose land they choose to occupy (all expenses paid by the U.S.A.). “Arrest” means “to take or keep in custody by authority of law.” Repeat: “by authority of law”. Thus the word “arrest” is often wrongly used by American writers to lend a phony air of legitimacy to Israel’s kidnappings. Here the dishonesty is magnified because the cabinet ministers, legislators, and mayors whom Israel has snatched and unlawfully imprisoned were legitimately elected to govern the land where they were kidnapped!
It was the United States which most loudly supported democracy and free elections in Palestine – and then, with Israel, promptly tried to reverse the results of the election when it didn’t like the results.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Cowardice, or Business as Usual?
I don’t consider myself naïve, but I confess that I thought the Democrats would make a big difference in Washington after the November elections. Visions of bold Democrats wiping Congressional corridors with Republicans must now go the way of the Tooth Fairy. What we see instead is an exhibition of spineless cowardice.
But wait. . . “Cowardice” implies that because of fear one avoids something he knows he should do. Simply running out of a burning house isn’t cowardice because no duty is being neglected. What do you call a situation in which a political candidate insincerely promises to do certain brave things which he or she has no intention of doing? What of the Democratic candidates who knew throughout their campaign bravado that they were just mouthing words, with no intention of acting?
I say that “cowardice” is an appropriate word, but I think it should be classified as worse than simply running away at the last minute because one is scared. The Democrats’ cowardice is aggravated by untruthfulness, by fraudulent promises about things they had no intention of doing.
They were elected basically for one reason, and they know it: To get the United States out of Iraq. Yet ever since the election they have backed away from that duty.
Their behavior confirms what I have written here before: The federal government is first and foremost a giant, ongoing job fair, and each election is a job-grabbing greased pig chase. The only thing that matters to politicians is getting elected and staying elected. And their dementia worsens once they taste the glory of life in Washington.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that his fellow Democrats know they were elected to stop the war and yet are doing nothing because they are frightened of being accused of “not supporting the troops” and because they voted for the war in the first place. Ironically, the reason they voted for the war in the first place was fear of being called “wimps” and . . . guess what? . . . being accused later of “not supporting our troops”.
If Democrats automatically sink to the lowest level of brainless Joe Six Pack WWF Patriotism for fear of losing votes, that means that the U.S. is in effect being run by the lowest forms of intelligence in the land. (Hooray for democracy!) If Democrats are more concerned about losing their jobs because Grandma might falsely accuse them of not financing armor for her grandson than they are about ruining their country with a lunatic war, they are proving the truth of every criticism I’ve made.
A “New York Times” article of February 5 prompted me to write this post. Excerpts:
“But while Democratic critics may wish to challenge the administration’s blueprint, political and fiscal constraints will make it hard for them to assert their own priorities.
“In theory, the budget presents the Democrats their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration’s policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years. But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration’s proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these.
“’The long-term budget crisis appears so distant that it’s going to be very hard to get politicians excited about it this year,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. ‘No one wants to risk popular support by doing something courageous.’”
But wait. . . “Cowardice” implies that because of fear one avoids something he knows he should do. Simply running out of a burning house isn’t cowardice because no duty is being neglected. What do you call a situation in which a political candidate insincerely promises to do certain brave things which he or she has no intention of doing? What of the Democratic candidates who knew throughout their campaign bravado that they were just mouthing words, with no intention of acting?
I say that “cowardice” is an appropriate word, but I think it should be classified as worse than simply running away at the last minute because one is scared. The Democrats’ cowardice is aggravated by untruthfulness, by fraudulent promises about things they had no intention of doing.
They were elected basically for one reason, and they know it: To get the United States out of Iraq. Yet ever since the election they have backed away from that duty.
Their behavior confirms what I have written here before: The federal government is first and foremost a giant, ongoing job fair, and each election is a job-grabbing greased pig chase. The only thing that matters to politicians is getting elected and staying elected. And their dementia worsens once they taste the glory of life in Washington.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that his fellow Democrats know they were elected to stop the war and yet are doing nothing because they are frightened of being accused of “not supporting the troops” and because they voted for the war in the first place. Ironically, the reason they voted for the war in the first place was fear of being called “wimps” and . . . guess what? . . . being accused later of “not supporting our troops”.
If Democrats automatically sink to the lowest level of brainless Joe Six Pack WWF Patriotism for fear of losing votes, that means that the U.S. is in effect being run by the lowest forms of intelligence in the land. (Hooray for democracy!) If Democrats are more concerned about losing their jobs because Grandma might falsely accuse them of not financing armor for her grandson than they are about ruining their country with a lunatic war, they are proving the truth of every criticism I’ve made.
A “New York Times” article of February 5 prompted me to write this post. Excerpts:
“But while Democratic critics may wish to challenge the administration’s blueprint, political and fiscal constraints will make it hard for them to assert their own priorities.
“In theory, the budget presents the Democrats their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration’s policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years. But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration’s proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these.
“’The long-term budget crisis appears so distant that it’s going to be very hard to get politicians excited about it this year,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. ‘No one wants to risk popular support by doing something courageous.’”
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Short Items
While I prepare my first post in response to the reasonable recent question, “Am I putting too much emphasis on Zionist influence and not enough on other causes of American policies toward other nations?”, I’m going to post these bits and pieces.
----
Hard to Find News
I found it difficult to find conspicuous coverage of what was probably the most important (to Americans) news of yesterday – the deaths of some 20 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. It was even more difficult to dig up news about the cause of the helicopter crash in which 15 died – a cause which U.S. authorities said was “under investigation”. But “The Boston Globe”
(which I’ve noticed is surfacing with some of the best coverage of news) stated:
“An Iraqi witness who spoke on condition of anonymity said the helicopter was felled by ground fire.
"’I'm not sure if it was a rocket or other projectile,’ said the man, a farmer. ‘After the helicopter was fired upon, it was obvious that it was losing control. Then it crashed with an explosion and the smoke started.’ The farmer said he and others dared not approach the wreckage to look for survivors, fearing that US forces arriving on the scene might fire at them.”
----
Slanted Words
AP Jan. 18
“SEOUL (AP) — A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the North's media reported, as the two hard-line regimes face international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs.”
How does a government qualify as a “hard-line” regime”?
I would think that the G.W. Bush government would win top honors in the category, “Hard-Line Regime”.
----
From ”USAToday”, January 18:
“Opening of Vast Holocaust Archive Could Take Years”
Falsification in the headline: It is not a “holocaust” archive. It is the archive of the International Tracing Service (ITS) an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the German town of Bad Arolsen. Its frequent false publicity as a “Holocaust archive” will backfire when its contents are revealed – presuming (dream on) that the whole truth will be told.
----
Hypocrisy Writ Large
From the New York Times:
“Rice Speaks Softly in Egypt, Avoiding Democracy Push"
“CAIRO, Jan. 15 — In the days before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with officials in Egypt, the news media here were filled with stories detailing charges of corruption, cronyism, torture and political repression.
“Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.
“It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.”
”Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.”
All right, students. Can anyone tell the class why the Bush maladministration, in spite of its loudly trumpeted quest for “democracy” in the Middle East, cozies up to Egypt as “our friend” and a “moderate” Arab nation?
----
Hard to Find News
I found it difficult to find conspicuous coverage of what was probably the most important (to Americans) news of yesterday – the deaths of some 20 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. It was even more difficult to dig up news about the cause of the helicopter crash in which 15 died – a cause which U.S. authorities said was “under investigation”. But “The Boston Globe”
(which I’ve noticed is surfacing with some of the best coverage of news) stated:
“An Iraqi witness who spoke on condition of anonymity said the helicopter was felled by ground fire.
"’I'm not sure if it was a rocket or other projectile,’ said the man, a farmer. ‘After the helicopter was fired upon, it was obvious that it was losing control. Then it crashed with an explosion and the smoke started.’ The farmer said he and others dared not approach the wreckage to look for survivors, fearing that US forces arriving on the scene might fire at them.”
----
Slanted Words
AP Jan. 18
“SEOUL (AP) — A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the North's media reported, as the two hard-line regimes face international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs.”
How does a government qualify as a “hard-line” regime”?
I would think that the G.W. Bush government would win top honors in the category, “Hard-Line Regime”.
----
From ”USAToday”, January 18:
“Opening of Vast Holocaust Archive Could Take Years”
Falsification in the headline: It is not a “holocaust” archive. It is the archive of the International Tracing Service (ITS) an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the German town of Bad Arolsen. Its frequent false publicity as a “Holocaust archive” will backfire when its contents are revealed – presuming (dream on) that the whole truth will be told.
----
Hypocrisy Writ Large
From the New York Times:
“Rice Speaks Softly in Egypt, Avoiding Democracy Push"
“CAIRO, Jan. 15 — In the days before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with officials in Egypt, the news media here were filled with stories detailing charges of corruption, cronyism, torture and political repression.
“Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.
“It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.”
”Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.”
All right, students. Can anyone tell the class why the Bush maladministration, in spite of its loudly trumpeted quest for “democracy” in the Middle East, cozies up to Egypt as “our friend” and a “moderate” Arab nation?
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Democracy
What’s this about no democracy in Iran?
“TEHRAN, Dec. 18 — Partial returns from Friday’s Iranian elections suggested today that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had experienced a major setback barely over a year after his own election. The victory of a pragmatic politician, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, over a hard-line candidate associated with Mr. Ahmadinejad gave one strong indication that voters favored more moderate policies. Mr. Rafsanjani won almost twice as many votes as the hard-liner, Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, for a position in the 86-member Assembly of Experts. The Assembly has the power to replace the supreme religious leader.”
I keep reading such reports and seeing video of Iranians voting, which means to me that democracy is alive in Persia although it may not be the same brand as what we call democracy. When Bush & Co. tell us that certain “evil” countries in the Middle East (not to be confused with “moderate” countries which Washington approves even though they are not democratic at all) are not democracies, they must often mean – if they mean anything – that those governments are not “democratic enough”.
Well, in the first place, when did God announce that democracy was the ideal form of government? For a very long time the word was that God had given kings the divine right to rule. And even if God has changed His mind, who has proved that democracy will be beneficial everywhere in the world, or even that it will work at all in every state?
Based on what the American people got for their votes in recent years, I would say that democracy has failed in the United States except to the extent it is seen as “the least bad choice”. When one gets into an argument about democracy, the rock bottom clincher on the pro-democracy side is, “You can at least get rid of bad leaders by voting them out, which you can’t do in a monarchy or dictatorship.” There is a lot to be said for that point, but it is still a “least bad choice” plea rather than an affirmative argument for the virtues of what democracy gives to the voters.
Also, people sometimes forget that bad dictators and monarchs have often been deposed by coup or revolution, if not milder means, and that a dictator may therefore be more aware of and responsive to majority public opinion than the average U.S. politician who begins taking a calculating interest in his constituents a few weeks before election time.
It is not democracy which protects the rights of minorities and majorities, but rather the rule of law within a sufficiently orderly and stable society. The worst form of government might be a powerful, greedy tyrant whose whim is law, but I would argue that the best and most efficient form of government would be a dictatorship by a benevolent leader who has the people’s welfare at heart and recognizes the restraint of rational laws and a functional legal system. I think that in spite of the praise of ancient Athenian democracy, the prevailing view among the finest thinkers of the time was that rule by the best was superior to rule by the most. Nothing has happened to change that principle.
A passing thought: Would you rather have a democracy with torture (as we have now in America), or an authoritarian government without torture? “Democracy” simply means, in theory, “rulership by the majority through free elections”. It does not necessarily come with a package of other good things.
The big flaw in arguments for democracy or something approaching it is the failure to recognize the shortcomings in the judgment of the voters and their susceptibility to demagoguery and the present information plague, managed news. While most people are relatively unintelligent, I believe that most have sound instincts about what is good for them and bad for the group with which they identify. But when it comes to the details, especially economic matters and foreign policy, they are easily misled by obfuscation, obscurantism, specious arguments, and outright lies. Public opinion can be no better than the published opinion which forms it.
Be all that as it may, for the United States to launch aggressive wars and threats of wars in the name of “bringing democracy” to this or that foreign state is insupportable by any ethical or logical standard. Democracy is no cure-all and is not even suitable for many populations. Most likely it is knowingly exported as a placebo, the actual purpose being to replace the native method of rulership with elections whose outcome can decided by the management of “news” and other organs of propaganda. Add the that the greater ease of “managing” politicians than a strong individual leaders, and a “free people” in terms of right to vote may actually be less free than a people living under a benevolent authoritarian form of government.
I wonder how many Iraqis would vote for the horror they now endure with American-imposed “democracy”, in preference to what they had during their years of order and prosperity under the Baathists?
“TEHRAN, Dec. 18 — Partial returns from Friday’s Iranian elections suggested today that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had experienced a major setback barely over a year after his own election. The victory of a pragmatic politician, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, over a hard-line candidate associated with Mr. Ahmadinejad gave one strong indication that voters favored more moderate policies. Mr. Rafsanjani won almost twice as many votes as the hard-liner, Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, for a position in the 86-member Assembly of Experts. The Assembly has the power to replace the supreme religious leader.”
I keep reading such reports and seeing video of Iranians voting, which means to me that democracy is alive in Persia although it may not be the same brand as what we call democracy. When Bush & Co. tell us that certain “evil” countries in the Middle East (not to be confused with “moderate” countries which Washington approves even though they are not democratic at all) are not democracies, they must often mean – if they mean anything – that those governments are not “democratic enough”.
Well, in the first place, when did God announce that democracy was the ideal form of government? For a very long time the word was that God had given kings the divine right to rule. And even if God has changed His mind, who has proved that democracy will be beneficial everywhere in the world, or even that it will work at all in every state?
Based on what the American people got for their votes in recent years, I would say that democracy has failed in the United States except to the extent it is seen as “the least bad choice”. When one gets into an argument about democracy, the rock bottom clincher on the pro-democracy side is, “You can at least get rid of bad leaders by voting them out, which you can’t do in a monarchy or dictatorship.” There is a lot to be said for that point, but it is still a “least bad choice” plea rather than an affirmative argument for the virtues of what democracy gives to the voters.
Also, people sometimes forget that bad dictators and monarchs have often been deposed by coup or revolution, if not milder means, and that a dictator may therefore be more aware of and responsive to majority public opinion than the average U.S. politician who begins taking a calculating interest in his constituents a few weeks before election time.
It is not democracy which protects the rights of minorities and majorities, but rather the rule of law within a sufficiently orderly and stable society. The worst form of government might be a powerful, greedy tyrant whose whim is law, but I would argue that the best and most efficient form of government would be a dictatorship by a benevolent leader who has the people’s welfare at heart and recognizes the restraint of rational laws and a functional legal system. I think that in spite of the praise of ancient Athenian democracy, the prevailing view among the finest thinkers of the time was that rule by the best was superior to rule by the most. Nothing has happened to change that principle.
A passing thought: Would you rather have a democracy with torture (as we have now in America), or an authoritarian government without torture? “Democracy” simply means, in theory, “rulership by the majority through free elections”. It does not necessarily come with a package of other good things.
The big flaw in arguments for democracy or something approaching it is the failure to recognize the shortcomings in the judgment of the voters and their susceptibility to demagoguery and the present information plague, managed news. While most people are relatively unintelligent, I believe that most have sound instincts about what is good for them and bad for the group with which they identify. But when it comes to the details, especially economic matters and foreign policy, they are easily misled by obfuscation, obscurantism, specious arguments, and outright lies. Public opinion can be no better than the published opinion which forms it.
Be all that as it may, for the United States to launch aggressive wars and threats of wars in the name of “bringing democracy” to this or that foreign state is insupportable by any ethical or logical standard. Democracy is no cure-all and is not even suitable for many populations. Most likely it is knowingly exported as a placebo, the actual purpose being to replace the native method of rulership with elections whose outcome can decided by the management of “news” and other organs of propaganda. Add the that the greater ease of “managing” politicians than a strong individual leaders, and a “free people” in terms of right to vote may actually be less free than a people living under a benevolent authoritarian form of government.
I wonder how many Iraqis would vote for the horror they now endure with American-imposed “democracy”, in preference to what they had during their years of order and prosperity under the Baathists?
Friday, December 22, 2006
More on “Democracy” in Palestine
The following news excerpts expand yesterday’s discussion. First, by way of introduction, a recent UN report demonstrates the effects of Israeli occupation and recent American and Israeli obstruction of democracy in Palestine: 65% of Palestinians are living in poverty, 29% are unemployed, healthcare is on the verge of collapse and 50% of Palestinians do not have reliable access to food. With increasing malnutrition in some parts of the Jewish-occupied Palestinian territories, and the severe restrictions on movement imposed by Israel, Palestinians have to negotiate their way through 500 checkpoints and deal with Israel’s “separation” wall. All this on their own native land. Of course the U.S. strangling of normal funding because it did not like the outcome of the January elections is playing a large part in this genocidal picture now.
Al Jazeera (Dec. 22) “Four more people have been killed in violence and revenge killings in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since President Mahmoud Abbas called for early presidential and parliamentary elections on Saturday.
“Hamas won a majority in January 2006 parliamentary elections and Fatah has resisted surrendering positions it dominated for decades.
“Some Palestinians say US-led opposition to the Hamas-led government is drawing battle lines for the entire region.
“’The US administration wants to create a new Middle East,’ acting parliament speaker Hassan Khreisheh told Aljazeera.net. ‘This new Middle East demands that countries allied to the US - Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf countries - are pit against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.’
[But somebody is happy:] “’I am pleased a moderate* axis of countries in the Arab world has been created that wants to take part in blocking Iran's influence on the region,’ Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Elmer said in an October policy speech.
“Regional banks have also stepped into the foray as mounting concern about US anti-terrorism statutes has coerced them to bar transfer of monies to the Palestinian government."
*(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
Al Jazeera (Dec. 22) “Four more people have been killed in violence and revenge killings in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since President Mahmoud Abbas called for early presidential and parliamentary elections on Saturday.
“Hamas won a majority in January 2006 parliamentary elections and Fatah has resisted surrendering positions it dominated for decades.
“Some Palestinians say US-led opposition to the Hamas-led government is drawing battle lines for the entire region.
“’The US administration wants to create a new Middle East,’ acting parliament speaker Hassan Khreisheh told Aljazeera.net. ‘This new Middle East demands that countries allied to the US - Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf countries - are pit against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.’
[But somebody is happy:] “’I am pleased a moderate* axis of countries in the Arab world has been created that wants to take part in blocking Iran's influence on the region,’ Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Elmer said in an October policy speech.
“Regional banks have also stepped into the foray as mounting concern about US anti-terrorism statutes has coerced them to bar transfer of monies to the Palestinian government."
*(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Tony Blair's "Democracy" (Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge)
My remarks about the U.S. and Britain ostensibly pressing for democracy in selected Middle East countries (not including “moderates” like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan) while thwarting the results of elections if they don’t like them, find new focus today in yelpings of Robopup Tony Blair.
(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
“DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
(“Extremist” as defined in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED: “3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.”)
“Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism. . . . He called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a ‘monumental struggle’ between democracy and extremism. . . .
“Blair plans to hold talks with world leaders in early 2007 on delivering a package of aid for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has called for early elections after failing to form a unity administration with Hamas, which won elections in January but is being boycotted by the West because of its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.”
So, Blair, who backed a democratic election in Palestine, now ignores the results of that election and works to deliver “aid” to the losing party instead of the lawfully elected party. It will be interesting to find out which “world leaders” go along with him in ignoring the democratic process he and Bush instigated. Isn’t it amazing that the thrust of Blair’s statements is that IRAN is improperly interfering in the Middle East? As a friend of mine said, “Democracy” is just the flag under which the pirates are sailing.)
(What if a second election is held and Hamas wins again in spite of the payoffs to the opposing party? Or is that being “taken care of”?)
As usual, there is no logical consistency in the Blair/Bush duet (they sing in unison, a cappella). As usual, what is good for Israel and bad for the oppressed Palestinians defines “good”.
Awhile back I asked if Robopup Blair might be straining at his leash to set himself free, but the answer is “no”. I think he was just excited by a fire hydrant.
And this just in:
“(Reuters) - Israel is considering handing over millions of dollars in withheld Palestinian tax funds to President Mahmoud Abbas in a move that could bolster him ahead of elections over his Hamas rivals, sources said on Wednesday. Western diplomats and Palestinian sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the proposal under consideration calls for releasing the tax money to Abbas in stages on condition it will bypass the Hamas-led government. Transferring the funds would mark a shift in Israeli policy, and could allow the moderate Abbas to make payments to Palestinian civil servants, who have not received their full salaries since Hamas came to power in March. “
(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
“DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
(“Extremist” as defined in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED: “3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.”)
“Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism. . . . He called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a ‘monumental struggle’ between democracy and extremism. . . .
“Blair plans to hold talks with world leaders in early 2007 on delivering a package of aid for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has called for early elections after failing to form a unity administration with Hamas, which won elections in January but is being boycotted by the West because of its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.”
So, Blair, who backed a democratic election in Palestine, now ignores the results of that election and works to deliver “aid” to the losing party instead of the lawfully elected party. It will be interesting to find out which “world leaders” go along with him in ignoring the democratic process he and Bush instigated. Isn’t it amazing that the thrust of Blair’s statements is that IRAN is improperly interfering in the Middle East? As a friend of mine said, “Democracy” is just the flag under which the pirates are sailing.)
(What if a second election is held and Hamas wins again in spite of the payoffs to the opposing party? Or is that being “taken care of”?)
As usual, there is no logical consistency in the Blair/Bush duet (they sing in unison, a cappella). As usual, what is good for Israel and bad for the oppressed Palestinians defines “good”.
Awhile back I asked if Robopup Blair might be straining at his leash to set himself free, but the answer is “no”. I think he was just excited by a fire hydrant.
And this just in:
“(Reuters) - Israel is considering handing over millions of dollars in withheld Palestinian tax funds to President Mahmoud Abbas in a move that could bolster him ahead of elections over his Hamas rivals, sources said on Wednesday. Western diplomats and Palestinian sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the proposal under consideration calls for releasing the tax money to Abbas in stages on condition it will bypass the Hamas-led government. Transferring the funds would mark a shift in Israeli policy, and could allow the moderate Abbas to make payments to Palestinian civil servants, who have not received their full salaries since Hamas came to power in March. “
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)